Evolutionary Biosemiotics and Multilevel Construction Networks
- 621 Downloads
In contrast to the traditional relational semiotics, biosemiotics decisively deviates towards dynamical aspects of signs at the evolutionary and developmental time scales. The analysis of sign dynamics requires constructivism (in a broad sense) to explain how new components such as subagents, sensors, effectors, and interpretation networks are produced by developing and evolving organisms. Semiotic networks that include signs, tools, and subagents are multilevel, and this feature supports the plasticity, robustness, and evolvability of organisms. The origin of life is described here as the emergence of simple self-constructing semiotic networks that progressively increased the diversity of their components and relations. Primitive organisms have no capacity to classify and track objects; thus, we need to admit the existence of proto-signs that directly regulate activities of agents without being associated with objects. However, object recognition and handling became possible in eukaryotic species with the development of extensive rewritable epigenetic memory as well as sensorial and effector capacities. Semiotic networks are based on sequential and recursive construction, where each step produces components (i.e., agents, scaffolds, signs, and resources) that are needed for the following steps of construction. Construction is not limited to repair and reproduction of what already exists or is unambiguously encoded, it also includes production of new components and behaviors via learning and evolution. A special case is the emergence of new levels of organization known as metasystem transition. Multilevel semiotic networks reshape the phenotype of organisms by combining a mosaic of features developed via learning and evolution of cooperating and/or conflicting subagents.
KeywordsEvolutionary semiotics Constructivism Semiotic network Evolvability Metasystem transition Constraints on learning
This paper was supported entirely by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Aging (NIA/NIH), project Z01 AG000656-13. The content of the paper is not endorsed by the funding organization.
- Anderson, M., Deely, J., Krampen, M., Ransdell, J., Sebeok, T. A., & Uexküll, T. v. (1984). A semiotic perspective on the sciences: steps toward a new paradigm. Semiotica, 52(1/2), 7–47.Google Scholar
- Barbieri, M. (2003). The organic codes: An introduction to semantic biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Bruni, L. E. (2008). Cellular semiotics and signal transduction. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics. The new biological synthesis (pp. 365–407). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Compain, P. (2003). Le pari de la simplexité. Le simple et le complexe en synthèse organique. L’Actualité Chimique(4-5), 129–134.Google Scholar
- Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Deely, J. (1992). Semiotics and biosemiotics: Are sign-science and life-science coextensive? In T. A. Sebeok & J. Umiker-Sebeok (Eds.), Biosemiotics. The semiotic web 1991 (pp. 45–75). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Dewey, J. (1998). The development of American pragmatism. In T. M. A. L. A. Hickman (Ed.), The essential Dewey (vol. 1). Bloomengton: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
- Hoffmeyer, J. (1996). Signs of meaning in the universe. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.Google Scholar
- Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics: An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs Scranton. PA: University of Scranton Press.Google Scholar
- Hoffmeyer, J. (2010). Semiotics of nature. In P. Cobley (Ed.), The Routledge companion to semiotics (pp. 29–42). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hoffmeyer, J., & Emmeche, C. (1991). Code-duality and the semiotics of nature. In M. Anderson & F. Merrell (Eds.), On semiotic modeling (pp. 117–166). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Hoffmeyer, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (2016). The great chain of semiosis. investigating the steps in the evolution of semiotic competence,” Jesper Hoffmeyer and Frederik Stjernfelt. Biosemiotics, 9(1). doi: 10.1007/s12304-015-9247-y.
- James, W. (1954). Essays in pragmatism. New York: Hafner Pub. Co.Google Scholar
- Klir, G. J. (1991). Facets of systems science (Vol. 7, IFSR International Series on Systems Science and Engineering). New York, London: Springer.Google Scholar
- Liu, C. H., & Matthews. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386–399.Google Scholar
- Lodish, H., Berk, A., Zipursky, S. L., Matsudaira, P., & Darnell, J. (2000). Molecular cell biology (4th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
- Minsky, M. (1986). The society of mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
- Morris, C. W. (1964). Signification and significance: A study of the relations of signs and values. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Noss, R., & Clayson, J. (2015). Reconstructing constructionism. Constructivist Foundations, 10(3), 285–288.Google Scholar
- Peirce, C. S. (1976). The new elements of mathematics. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
- Piaget, J., & Garcia, R. (1989). Psychogenesis and the history of science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Prodi, G. (1988). Material bases of signification. Semiotica, 69(3/4), 191–241.Google Scholar
- Rosen, R. (1991). Life itself: a comprehensive inquiry into the nature, origin, and fabrication of life. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Schlosser, G., & Wagner, G. P. (2004). Introduction: The modularity concept in developmental and evolutionary biology. In G. Schlosser & G. P. Wagner (Eds.), Modularity in development and evolution (pp. 1–11). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Schrödinger, E. (1940). What is life? The physical aspect of the living cell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Sharov, A. A. (1992). Biosemiotics: functional-evolutionary approach to the problem of the sense of information. In T. A. Sebeok & J. Umiker-Sebeok (Eds.), Biosemiotics. The semiotic web 1991 (pp. 345–373). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Sharov, A. A. (2001). Umwelt theory and pragmatism. Semiotica, 134, 211–228.Google Scholar
- Sharov, A. A. (2016b). Evolution of natural agents: preservation, advance, and emergence of functional information. Biosemiotics, 8. doi: 10.1007/s12304-015-9250-3.
- Sharov, A. A., & Gordon, R. (2013). Life before earth. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.3381.pdf2013.
- Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Turchin, V. F. (1977). The phenomenon of science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Uexküll, J. v. (1982). The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42(1), 25–82.Google Scholar
- Villareal, L. P. (2009). Origin of group identity. Viruses, addiction and cooperation. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- von Neumann, J. (1966). Theory of self-reproducing automata. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar